You’re advocating killing Diogenes by strapping him to a table and giving him a lethal injection for giving his child lunch treats containing peanuts, if your allergic child in the same school ingests some of those foods and dies?
I don’t understand what the point of such a protest would be. Okay, so your child’s school has hypothetically banned all peanut products and you don’t like it. You decide to send your kid to school with a PBJ anyway in “protest”. What good is this going to do? I can think of three possible outcomes, none of which result in the rule being changed.
-
Someone notices your kid has a peanut butter sandwich and takes it away from her, since such food is forbidden at school. Your kid doesn’t get to eat the sandwich, and the school may now feel that even stricter measures are needed to enforce the peanut ban since parents are still sending their kids to school with peanut butter sandwiches.
-
No one notices your kid has a peanut butter sandwich. None of the peanut butter comes into contact with the allergic child, so no reaction takes place. Your kid gets to eat the sandwich and no harm is done, but as far as the school knows your little protest never took place. The rule remains in place and unchanged.
-
No one notices your kid has a peanut butter sandwich. Some of the peanut butter does come into contact with the allergic child, who then has a dangerous reaction. Your kid gets to eat the sandwich but another child’s health was endangered. Way to convince everyone that the peanut ban was unneccesary! I’m sure they’ll drop that rule now that you’ve proven that the effects of violating this rule are just as bad as they feared!
It seems to me that a more effective means of protest would be something like, you know, complaining to the administration, speaking up at PTA meetings, organizing a group of concerned parents, discussing the issue with the parents of the allergic child, maybe helping to think up an alternative lunchtime arrangement…Of course, none of those are as easy as just making your kid a PBJ. However, all stand a better chance of actually getting the ban removed, and without putting an allergic child who thinks his environment is peanut-free at extra risk.
So do you drive at 50mph in 25mph school zones as a protest about the draconian traffic laws? Shouldn’t parents teach their children how to behave near traffic? Such a rule is inconveniencing the entire neighborhood for the good of a few students who are too dumb to look both ways. Cars are ubiquitous in our society–we should be able to put a freeway right next to the school.
Seaside, California has a high school right next to a highway.
I thought that the rule was overkill. I don’t believe that banning peanut products for an entire school would be either feasible nor effective. I said I would send my kid to school with PBJs not to endanger other kids but to protest an over-protective rule.
Realistically, I would also tell my kid not to share food, to wash her hands after she eats and I would refrain from giving her products which would have more of a chance of spreading airborne peanut dust (like whole peanuts). I wouldn’t even have a problem with a school restricting whole peanuts or other nuts. The teacher should also take care to supervise any at-risk kids to make sure that they do not share food, that they wash their hands, that they are not seated at a table with PBJ munchers, etc.
I’m reminded of Chinese parable I once read about a king who wanted to carpet the entire kingdom so that he could walk comfortably anywhere he wanted with his bare feet. Someone eventually advised him simply to strap a piece of carpet to each foot instead and -voila- (mixing cultures, I know) shoes were born.
I think it would be more effective to keep an eye on the kid in question than it would be to try to monitor an entire school for any hint of peanuts.
From the same link Lamia posted:*
Researchers don’t believe pollution is the whole story, though; allergies have continued to climb even as smoking and air-pollution rates have fallen in recent decades. But industrialization has also brought about declines in infectious diseases and close exposure to farm animals. The “hygiene hypothesis” holds that it is precisely these (mostly desirable) trends that have contributed to the rise in allergies. The human immune system, which evolved in a natural environment teeming with hostile bacteria and parasites, finds itself uncomfortably idle in the antiseptic confines of the modern suburb, and, failing to mature properly, takes out its frustration on harmless peanuts and shrimp. Numerous studies have lent support to this general notion, notably one last year that showed a strong negative correlation between allergies and exposure to endotoxins, which are bacterial remains shed by farm animals. Research by Dr. Dennis Ownby of the Medical College of Georgia shows that children growing up with two or more pets, either cats or dogs, had a decreased risk of allergies—and not just to pet dander, but other unrelated allergens as well. But although many researchers accept the hygiene hypothesis in outline, the emerging picture is of “a complicated relationship, where dose and timing of exposure” play important but still uncertain roles, says Dr. Scott Weiss of Harvard.*
Maybe we ought to complain at our government at the air pollution we produce and maybe we ought to be a little less hygienic.
Just a thought.
I would not drive 50 in a 25 zone because I don’t believe that law to be ridiculous. However, if we were talking about Highway 15 between Barstow and Vegas, on a Tuesday night when there are hardly any cars out there, and the sign said 5mph (and I’m not referring to the work zones, I mean the straight, across-the-valley parts), then yes, I would find that ridiculous and probably drive at least 40 (going under 55 out of caution that there are factors I don’t know about). Just as I would send my child with peanut butter sandwiches but warn him/her to wash his/her hands and be very careful about not going near the child who’s allergic to peanuts.
I WOULD want to make sure the school knew I was doing it. If I went a whole week w/out my kid being caught, I’d probably go to the principal myself and tell them that there ridiculous rule is unenforceable and unreasonable.
Luckily for the peanut kid, IANA parent yet. (Luckily for me too)
Emarkp
You’re wrong.
He postulated ignoring a rule instituted to impose a political expedience upon people who have no political clout. A parent who depends solely on legislation to protect his children is negligent. And a parent who calls upon government to impose his rules for his child on other parents who have different but reasonable rules is a dick.
When you talk about Diogenes, you’re talking about a man who is a materialist and yet has a deeper comprehension of the teachings of Jesus than most Christians. He is more than capable of empathizing with the plight of parents who have children allergic to peanuts. But he likely draws the line when those parents want to impose their own plight with everyone else.
If you need to homeschool your child, then do it. Do whatever you need to do to protect your child from harm. But do not call upon me or my house to obey your rules. We would almost certainly accomodate you voluntarily, but if you force us, then you will have changed the issue from being about the child’s allergy to being about your own agenda.
You can protect your child, but you cannot handcuff me in the process when I am not coercing you or your child. At least you cannot do it ethically. Of course, you can do it by law, but what does the law have to do with ethics?
This reminds me of Terry Pratchett and his suicidal vampire.
He would find work in the unlikeliest places, like a pencil factory or somewhere that uses a lot of garlic.
And then he’d complain!
Time to start taking those fucking pills again, Lib.
A child molester with a lollypop would offer the same argument.
That’s stupid even for you, Desmo. Molestation is a coercion. Eating peanut butter isn’t.